Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Fifty-six.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to concede the point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Just to open up the rest of title I.

Mr. DICKS. I am reading from No. 1. It does not say anything about undeveloped areas. The gentleman said this several times, but if we have No. 1 here, it does not say that. It says ``anything'' on the Forest Service. The point I am trying to make is that the Forest Service provides more recreational opportunity than the Park Service.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just read the gentleman's amendment again, and it says, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to carry out, or to pay the salaries of personnel of the Forest Service who carry out the recreational fee demonstration program.''

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what happens if the State refuses to go to court? I mean, that is the problem here. We have got a situation where some of the States are unwilling to negotiate.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the law is, as I understand it, that the State can only allow the tribe to do what the State allows everyone else to do; and so, if they have an agreement, the tribes cannot go to a higher level of gambling.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but they can only have one claim, 5 acres for a millsite for dumping the waste. That is what the law says.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. But they have to have separate claims. They cannot have one claim and a 500-acre millsite unless this special legislation is enacted. That is the only way we can do this.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to put up his chart for me, and then I would like to enter into a colloquy. We can just go through this section.

Mr. DICKS. The statute here. Maybe this is where we hit the rut. Maybe the manual was wrong, but we have to go back to the statute. And I am asking the gentleman about the statute. As I read the statute, it appears to limit each millsite to 5 acres per claim. And that is the law.

Mr. DICKS. Wait a minute, not the manual.

Mr. DICKS. But as I understand it, if there are multiple claims, then there could be multiple millsites on each of 5 acres. Is that the understanding of the gentleman?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to hear somebody address the law here. What we have heard is a lot of rhetoric, but I would like to hear somebody address the statute and tell us, and is there a difference in language here? Because when I read this statute, it looks as if it does have this limitation.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the other side here, because here we have a memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor of the Bureau of Land Management, I guess it is the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, I would like to hear if anybody here disputes this. The Mining Law of 1872 provides that only one millsite of no more than 5 acres may be patented in association with each mining claim. Does anybody disagree with that?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I think we should just proceed, Mr. Chairman.